On 7/3/23 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 4:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 1:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/2/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
Only when I show you are wrong. Actually try to answer my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections
What about a three valued decider?
0=undecidable
1=halting
2=not halting
Doesn't meet the definition of a Halt Decider.
Because these are semantic properties based on the behavior of >>>>>>>>>>>> the input it does refute Rice.
Nope. Rice's theorem doesn't allow for an 'undecidable'
output state either.
Either the input is or is not something that is in the set >>>>>>>>>>> defined by the function/language defined.
Undecidable is just admitting that Rice is true.
Undecidable <is> a semantic property.
Source of that Claim?
And you aren't saying the Undecidable <IS> a semantic property, >>>>>>>>> but is an answer for if an input <HAS> some specific semantic >>>>>>>>> property.
In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all non-trivial >>>>>>>> semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A semantic
property is
one about the program's behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
Undecidable <is> a semantic property of the finite string pair: >>>>>>>> {H,D}.
As I mentioned, many simple descriptions get it wrong. Note,
later in the same page it says:
It is important to note that Rice's theorem does not concern the >>>>>>> properties of machines or programs; it concerns properties of
functions and languages.
H correctly accepts every language specified by the pair: {H, *}
(where the first element is the machine description of H and the
second element is any other machine description) or rejects this
pair as undecidable.
So, you are admitting you don't understand what you are saying.
D isn't "undecidable" but always has definite behavior based on the
behavior of the definite machine H that it was based on (and thus
you are being INTENTIONALLY dupicious by now calling H to be a some
sort of other decider).
Since you claim that Halt-Decider-H "Correctly" returned false for
H(D,D) we know that D(D) Halts, so D the problem of D has an answer
so hard to call "undecidable"
Again, what is the definition of your "Language", and why do you
call {H,D} as UNDECIDABLE, since H will be a FIXED DEFINED decider
that is just WRONG about its input, that isn't "undecidable".
{H,D} undecidable means that D is undecidable for H, which is an
verified fact. The set of {H,*} finite string pairs do define a
language. Decidability <is> a semantic property because it
can only be correctly decided on the basis of behavior.
What do you mean by "Undecidable by H?"
H correctly determines that it cannot provide a halt status
consistent with the behavior of the directly executed D(D).
So? If it REALLY could detect that, it just needs to give the opposite answer.
Or, in other words, you are just admitting that H is wrong.
On 7/3/2023 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 4:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 1:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/2/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
Only when I show you are wrong. Actually try to answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my objections
What about a three valued decider?
0=undecidable
1=halting
2=not halting
Doesn't meet the definition of a Halt Decider.
Because these are semantic properties based on the behavior of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the input it does refute Rice.
Nope. Rice's theorem doesn't allow for an 'undecidable' >>>>>>>>>>>> output state either.
Either the input is or is not something that is in the set >>>>>>>>>>>> defined by the function/language defined.
Undecidable is just admitting that Rice is true.
Undecidable <is> a semantic property.
Source of that Claim?
And you aren't saying the Undecidable <IS> a semantic
property, but is an answer for if an input <HAS> some specific >>>>>>>>>> semantic property.
In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all
non-trivial
semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A semantic
property is
one about the program's behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
Undecidable <is> a semantic property of the finite string pair: >>>>>>>>> {H,D}.
As I mentioned, many simple descriptions get it wrong. Note,
later in the same page it says:
It is important to note that Rice's theorem does not concern the >>>>>>>> properties of machines or programs; it concerns properties of
functions and languages.
H correctly accepts every language specified by the pair: {H, *} >>>>>>> (where the first element is the machine description of H and the >>>>>>> second element is any other machine description) or rejects this >>>>>>> pair as undecidable.
So, you are admitting you don't understand what you are saying.
D isn't "undecidable" but always has definite behavior based on
the behavior of the definite machine H that it was based on (and
thus you are being INTENTIONALLY dupicious by now calling H to be
a some sort of other decider).
Since you claim that Halt-Decider-H "Correctly" returned false for >>>>>> H(D,D) we know that D(D) Halts, so D the problem of D has an
answer so hard to call "undecidable"
Again, what is the definition of your "Language", and why do you
call {H,D} as UNDECIDABLE, since H will be a FIXED DEFINED decider >>>>>> that is just WRONG about its input, that isn't "undecidable".
{H,D} undecidable means that D is undecidable for H, which is an
verified fact. The set of {H,*} finite string pairs do define a
language. Decidability <is> a semantic property because it
can only be correctly decided on the basis of behavior.
What do you mean by "Undecidable by H?"
H correctly determines that it cannot provide a halt status
consistent with the behavior of the directly executed D(D).
So? If it REALLY could detect that, it just needs to give the opposite
answer.
Or, in other words, you are just admitting that H is wrong.
Try and show how D could do that.
D can loop if H says it will halt.
D can halt when H says it will loop.
How does D make itself decidable by H to contradict
H determining that it is undecidable?
On 7/3/23 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 4:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 1:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/2/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
Only when I show you are wrong. Actually try to answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my objections
What about a three valued decider?
0=undecidable
1=halting
2=not halting
Doesn't meet the definition of a Halt Decider.
Because these are semantic properties based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
the input it does refute Rice.
Nope. Rice's theorem doesn't allow for an 'undecidable' >>>>>>>>>>>>> output state either.
Either the input is or is not something that is in the set >>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by the function/language defined.
Undecidable is just admitting that Rice is true.
Undecidable <is> a semantic property.
Source of that Claim?
And you aren't saying the Undecidable <IS> a semantic
property, but is an answer for if an input <HAS> some
specific semantic property.
In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all
non-trivial
semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A semantic >>>>>>>>>> property is
one about the program's behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
Undecidable <is> a semantic property of the finite string
pair: {H,D}.
As I mentioned, many simple descriptions get it wrong. Note, >>>>>>>>> later in the same page it says:
It is important to note that Rice's theorem does not concern >>>>>>>>> the properties of machines or programs; it concerns properties >>>>>>>>> of functions and languages.
H correctly accepts every language specified by the pair: {H, *} >>>>>>>> (where the first element is the machine description of H and the >>>>>>>> second element is any other machine description) or rejects this >>>>>>>> pair as undecidable.
So, you are admitting you don't understand what you are saying.
D isn't "undecidable" but always has definite behavior based on
the behavior of the definite machine H that it was based on (and >>>>>>> thus you are being INTENTIONALLY dupicious by now calling H to be >>>>>>> a some sort of other decider).
Since you claim that Halt-Decider-H "Correctly" returned false
for H(D,D) we know that D(D) Halts, so D the problem of D has an >>>>>>> answer so hard to call "undecidable"
Again, what is the definition of your "Language", and why do you >>>>>>> call {H,D} as UNDECIDABLE, since H will be a FIXED DEFINED
decider that is just WRONG about its input, that isn't
"undecidable".
{H,D} undecidable means that D is undecidable for H, which is an
verified fact. The set of {H,*} finite string pairs do define a
language. Decidability <is> a semantic property because it
can only be correctly decided on the basis of behavior.
What do you mean by "Undecidable by H?"
H correctly determines that it cannot provide a halt status
consistent with the behavior of the directly executed D(D).
So? If it REALLY could detect that, it just needs to give the
opposite answer.
Or, in other words, you are just admitting that H is wrong.
Try and show how D could do that.
D can loop if H says it will halt.
D can halt when H says it will loop.
How does D make itself decidable by H to contradict
H determining that it is undecidable?
It doesn't need to, and the fact you are asking the question jkust shows
you don't understand what you are talking about.
You clearly don't understnad what "Decidability" means.
On 7/3/2023 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 4:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 1:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/2/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
Only when I show you are wrong. Actually try to answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my objections
What about a three valued decider?
0=undecidable
1=halting
2=not halting
Doesn't meet the definition of a Halt Decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because these are semantic properties based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
the input it does refute Rice.
Nope. Rice's theorem doesn't allow for an 'undecidable' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> output state either.
Either the input is or is not something that is in the set >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by the function/language defined.
Undecidable is just admitting that Rice is true.
Undecidable <is> a semantic property.
Source of that Claim?
And you aren't saying the Undecidable <IS> a semantic
property, but is an answer for if an input <HAS> some
specific semantic property.
In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all
non-trivial
semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A semantic >>>>>>>>>>> property is
one about the program's behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
Undecidable <is> a semantic property of the finite string >>>>>>>>>>> pair: {H,D}.
As I mentioned, many simple descriptions get it wrong. Note, >>>>>>>>>> later in the same page it says:
It is important to note that Rice's theorem does not concern >>>>>>>>>> the properties of machines or programs; it concerns properties >>>>>>>>>> of functions and languages.
H correctly accepts every language specified by the pair: {H, *} >>>>>>>>> (where the first element is the machine description of H and the >>>>>>>>> second element is any other machine description) or rejects this >>>>>>>>> pair as undecidable.
So, you are admitting you don't understand what you are saying. >>>>>>>>
D isn't "undecidable" but always has definite behavior based on >>>>>>>> the behavior of the definite machine H that it was based on (and >>>>>>>> thus you are being INTENTIONALLY dupicious by now calling H to >>>>>>>> be a some sort of other decider).
Since you claim that Halt-Decider-H "Correctly" returned false >>>>>>>> for H(D,D) we know that D(D) Halts, so D the problem of D has an >>>>>>>> answer so hard to call "undecidable"
Again, what is the definition of your "Language", and why do you >>>>>>>> call {H,D} as UNDECIDABLE, since H will be a FIXED DEFINED
decider that is just WRONG about its input, that isn't
"undecidable".
{H,D} undecidable means that D is undecidable for H, which is an >>>>>>> verified fact. The set of {H,*} finite string pairs do define a
language. Decidability <is> a semantic property because it
can only be correctly decided on the basis of behavior.
What do you mean by "Undecidable by H?"
H correctly determines that it cannot provide a halt status
consistent with the behavior of the directly executed D(D).
So? If it REALLY could detect that, it just needs to give the
opposite answer.
Or, in other words, you are just admitting that H is wrong.
Try and show how D could do that.
D can loop if H says it will halt.
D can halt when H says it will loop.
How does D make itself decidable by H to contradict
H determining that it is undecidable?
It doesn't need to, and the fact you are asking the question jkust
shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
You clearly don't understnad what "Decidability" means.
*Computable set*
In computability theory, a set of natural numbers is called computable, recursive, or decidable if there is an algorithm which takes a number as input, terminates after a finite amount of time (possibly depending on
the given number) and correctly decides whether the number belongs to
the set or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_set
Because A finite string can be construed as a very large integer the
above must equally apply to finite strings. That you are trying to
get away with disavowing this doesn't seem quite right. Since you only
have an EE degree we could chalk this up to ignorance.
It does seem that you acknowledge that there is no way to make
decidability undecidable.
On 7/3/23 9:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 4:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 1:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
Only when I show you are wrong. Actually try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer my objections
What about a three valued decider?
0=undecidable
1=halting
2=not halting
Doesn't meet the definition of a Halt Decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because these are semantic properties based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
the input it does refute Rice.
Nope. Rice's theorem doesn't allow for an 'undecidable' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output state either.
Either the input is or is not something that is in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set defined by the function/language defined.
Undecidable is just admitting that Rice is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Undecidable <is> a semantic property.
Source of that Claim?
And you aren't saying the Undecidable <IS> a semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>> property, but is an answer for if an input <HAS> some >>>>>>>>>>>>> specific semantic property.
In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all >>>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial
semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A semantic >>>>>>>>>>>> property is
one about the program's behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
Undecidable <is> a semantic property of the finite string >>>>>>>>>>>> pair: {H,D}.
As I mentioned, many simple descriptions get it wrong. Note, >>>>>>>>>>> later in the same page it says:
It is important to note that Rice's theorem does not concern >>>>>>>>>>> the properties of machines or programs; it concerns
properties of functions and languages.
H correctly accepts every language specified by the pair: {H, *} >>>>>>>>>> (where the first element is the machine description of H and the >>>>>>>>>> second element is any other machine description) or rejects this >>>>>>>>>> pair as undecidable.
So, you are admitting you don't understand what you are saying. >>>>>>>>>
D isn't "undecidable" but always has definite behavior based on >>>>>>>>> the behavior of the definite machine H that it was based on
(and thus you are being INTENTIONALLY dupicious by now calling >>>>>>>>> H to be a some sort of other decider).
Since you claim that Halt-Decider-H "Correctly" returned false >>>>>>>>> for H(D,D) we know that D(D) Halts, so D the problem of D has >>>>>>>>> an answer so hard to call "undecidable"
Again, what is the definition of your "Language", and why do >>>>>>>>> you call {H,D} as UNDECIDABLE, since H will be a FIXED DEFINED >>>>>>>>> decider that is just WRONG about its input, that isn't
"undecidable".
{H,D} undecidable means that D is undecidable for H, which is an >>>>>>>> verified fact. The set of {H,*} finite string pairs do define a >>>>>>>> language. Decidability <is> a semantic property because it
can only be correctly decided on the basis of behavior.
What do you mean by "Undecidable by H?"
H correctly determines that it cannot provide a halt status
consistent with the behavior of the directly executed D(D).
So? If it REALLY could detect that, it just needs to give the
opposite answer.
Or, in other words, you are just admitting that H is wrong.
Try and show how D could do that.
D can loop if H says it will halt.
D can halt when H says it will loop.
How does D make itself decidable by H to contradict
H determining that it is undecidable?
It doesn't need to, and the fact you are asking the question jkust
shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
You clearly don't understnad what "Decidability" means.
*Computable set*
In computability theory, a set of natural numbers is called computable,
recursive, or decidable if there is an algorithm which takes a number as
input, terminates after a finite amount of time (possibly depending on
the given number) and correctly decides whether the number belongs to
the set or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_set
Because A finite string can be construed as a very large integer the
above must equally apply to finite strings. That you are trying to
get away with disavowing this doesn't seem quite right. Since you only
have an EE degree we could chalk this up to ignorance.
It does seem that you acknowledge that there is no way to make
decidability undecidable.
Except that "Decidability" isn't a property of an "input"/Machine, but
of a PROBLEM, or one of the sets you are talking about. (not MEMBERS of
the set, which are the machines, but the set as a whole)>
So, you are confusing a property of the SET with a property of the members.
Decidability is about the ability for there to exist a machine that can decide if its input is a member of the set. If there exist such a
machine, then the SET is computable/decidable. If not, the SET isn't computable/decidable.
Nothing he talks about the possible members themselves being in the set
or not being a property like "decidable", it just isn't a property of
the members.
Your question is like asking if 2 is Purple.
On 7/3/2023 10:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 9:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 4:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 1:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
Only when I show you are wrong. Actually try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer my objections
What about a three valued decider?
0=undecidable
1=halting
2=not halting
Doesn't meet the definition of a Halt Decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because these are semantic properties based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
the input it does refute Rice.
Nope. Rice's theorem doesn't allow for an 'undecidable' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output state either.
Either the input is or is not something that is in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set defined by the function/language defined.
Undecidable is just admitting that Rice is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Undecidable <is> a semantic property.
Source of that Claim?
And you aren't saying the Undecidable <IS> a semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> property, but is an answer for if an input <HAS> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific semantic property.
In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial
semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>> property is
one about the program's behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
Undecidable <is> a semantic property of the finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>> pair: {H,D}.
As I mentioned, many simple descriptions get it wrong. Note, >>>>>>>>>>>> later in the same page it says:
It is important to note that Rice's theorem does not concern >>>>>>>>>>>> the properties of machines or programs; it concerns
properties of functions and languages.
H correctly accepts every language specified by the pair: {H, *} >>>>>>>>>>> (where the first element is the machine description of H and the >>>>>>>>>>> second element is any other machine description) or rejects this >>>>>>>>>>> pair as undecidable.
So, you are admitting you don't understand what you are saying. >>>>>>>>>>
D isn't "undecidable" but always has definite behavior based >>>>>>>>>> on the behavior of the definite machine H that it was based on >>>>>>>>>> (and thus you are being INTENTIONALLY dupicious by now calling >>>>>>>>>> H to be a some sort of other decider).
Since you claim that Halt-Decider-H "Correctly" returned false >>>>>>>>>> for H(D,D) we know that D(D) Halts, so D the problem of D has >>>>>>>>>> an answer so hard to call "undecidable"
Again, what is the definition of your "Language", and why do >>>>>>>>>> you call {H,D} as UNDECIDABLE, since H will be a FIXED DEFINED >>>>>>>>>> decider that is just WRONG about its input, that isn't
"undecidable".
{H,D} undecidable means that D is undecidable for H, which is an >>>>>>>>> verified fact. The set of {H,*} finite string pairs do define a >>>>>>>>> language. Decidability <is> a semantic property because it >>>>>>>>> can only be correctly decided on the basis of behavior.
What do you mean by "Undecidable by H?"
H correctly determines that it cannot provide a halt status
consistent with the behavior of the directly executed D(D).
So? If it REALLY could detect that, it just needs to give the
opposite answer.
Or, in other words, you are just admitting that H is wrong.
Try and show how D could do that.
D can loop if H says it will halt.
D can halt when H says it will loop.
How does D make itself decidable by H to contradict
H determining that it is undecidable?
It doesn't need to, and the fact you are asking the question jkust
shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
You clearly don't understnad what "Decidability" means.
*Computable set*
In computability theory, a set of natural numbers is called computable,
recursive, or decidable if there is an algorithm which takes a number as >>> input, terminates after a finite amount of time (possibly depending on
the given number) and correctly decides whether the number belongs to
the set or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_set
Because A finite string can be construed as a very large integer the
above must equally apply to finite strings. That you are trying to
get away with disavowing this doesn't seem quite right. Since you only
have an EE degree we could chalk this up to ignorance.
It does seem that you acknowledge that there is no way to make
decidability undecidable.
Except that "Decidability" isn't a property of an "input"/Machine, but
of a PROBLEM, or one of the sets you are talking about. (not MEMBERS
of the set, which are the machines, but the set as a whole)>
So, you are confusing a property of the SET with a property of the
members.
Decidability is about the ability for there to exist a machine that
can decide if its input is a member of the set. If there exist such a
machine, then the SET is computable/decidable. If not, the SET isn't
computable/decidable.
Since I just quoted that to you it is reasonable that you accept it.
Nothing he talks about the possible members themselves being in the
set or not being a property like "decidable", it just isn't a property
of the members.
Using Rogers' characterization of acceptable programming systems, Rice's theorem may essentially be generalized from Turing machines to most
computer programming languages: there exists no automatic method that
decides with generality non-trivial questions on the behavior of
computer programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
H correctly determines whether or not it can correctly determine the
halting status for all of the members of the set of conventional halting problem proof counter-examples and an infinite set of other elements.
H is deciding the semantic property of its own behavior on a set of
finite strings. The above says this can be done in C.
Your question is like asking if 2 is Purple.
Mere empty rhetoric utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning.
On 7/3/23 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 9:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 4:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 1:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/23 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
Only when I show you are wrong. Actually try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer my objections
What about a three valued decider?
0=undecidable
1=halting
2=not halting
Doesn't meet the definition of a Halt Decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because these are semantic properties based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
the input it does refute Rice.
Nope. Rice's theorem doesn't allow for an 'undecidable' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output state either.
Either the input is or is not something that is in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set defined by the function/language defined. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Undecidable is just admitting that Rice is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Undecidable <is> a semantic property.
Source of that Claim?
And you aren't saying the Undecidable <IS> a semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property, but is an answer for if an input <HAS> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific semantic property.
In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial
semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic property is
one about the program's behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
Undecidable <is> a semantic property of the finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pair: {H,D}.
As I mentioned, many simple descriptions get it wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, later in the same page it says:
It is important to note that Rice's theorem does not >>>>>>>>>>>>> concern the properties of machines or programs; it concerns >>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of functions and languages.
H correctly accepts every language specified by the pair: >>>>>>>>>>>> {H, *}
(where the first element is the machine description of H and >>>>>>>>>>>> the
second element is any other machine description) or rejects >>>>>>>>>>>> this
pair as undecidable.
So, you are admitting you don't understand what you are saying. >>>>>>>>>>>
D isn't "undecidable" but always has definite behavior based >>>>>>>>>>> on the behavior of the definite machine H that it was based >>>>>>>>>>> on (and thus you are being INTENTIONALLY dupicious by now >>>>>>>>>>> calling H to be a some sort of other decider).
Since you claim that Halt-Decider-H "Correctly" returned >>>>>>>>>>> false for H(D,D) we know that D(D) Halts, so D the problem of >>>>>>>>>>> D has an answer so hard to call "undecidable"
Again, what is the definition of your "Language", and why do >>>>>>>>>>> you call {H,D} as UNDECIDABLE, since H will be a FIXED
DEFINED decider that is just WRONG about its input, that >>>>>>>>>>> isn't "undecidable".
{H,D} undecidable means that D is undecidable for H, which is an >>>>>>>>>> verified fact. The set of {H,*} finite string pairs do define a >>>>>>>>>> language. Decidability <is> a semantic property because it >>>>>>>>>> can only be correctly decided on the basis of behavior.
What do you mean by "Undecidable by H?"
H correctly determines that it cannot provide a halt status
consistent with the behavior of the directly executed D(D).
So? If it REALLY could detect that, it just needs to give the
opposite answer.
Or, in other words, you are just admitting that H is wrong.
Try and show how D could do that.
D can loop if H says it will halt.
D can halt when H says it will loop.
How does D make itself decidable by H to contradict
H determining that it is undecidable?
It doesn't need to, and the fact you are asking the question jkust
shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
You clearly don't understnad what "Decidability" means.
*Computable set*
In computability theory, a set of natural numbers is called computable, >>>> recursive, or decidable if there is an algorithm which takes a
number as
input, terminates after a finite amount of time (possibly depending on >>>> the given number) and correctly decides whether the number belongs to
the set or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_set
Because A finite string can be construed as a very large integer the
above must equally apply to finite strings. That you are trying to
get away with disavowing this doesn't seem quite right. Since you only >>>> have an EE degree we could chalk this up to ignorance.
It does seem that you acknowledge that there is no way to make
decidability undecidable.
Except that "Decidability" isn't a property of an "input"/Machine,
but of a PROBLEM, or one of the sets you are talking about. (not
MEMBERS of the set, which are the machines, but the set as a whole)>
So, you are confusing a property of the SET with a property of the
members.
Decidability is about the ability for there to exist a machine that
can decide if its input is a member of the set. If there exist such a
machine, then the SET is computable/decidable. If not, the SET isn't
computable/decidable.
Since I just quoted that to you it is reasonable that you accept it.
Nope, Decidability is a property of PROBLEMS or SETS, not INPUTS.
You can't seem to tell the diffence bcause of your ignorance.
Nothing he talks about the possible members themselves being in the
set or not being a property like "decidable", it just isn't a
property of the members.
Using Rogers' characterization of acceptable programming systems, Rice's
theorem may essentially be generalized from Turing machines to most
computer programming languages: there exists no automatic method that
decides with generality non-trivial questions on the behavior of
computer programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
Yes, it doesn't need to be about Turning Machines, but it is still about
the ability to create a "program" to compute a Function / Decider for a Language/Set.
H correctly determines whether or not it can correctly determine the
halting status for all of the members of the set of conventional halting
problem proof counter-examples and an infinite set of other elements.
But that isn't a proper property.
You don't have "Decidability" on individual inputs, so it isn't a
Property of the input that can be decided on.
H is deciding the semantic property of its own behavior on a set of
finite strings. The above says this can be done in C.
Nope, just shows you don't understand a thing about what you are saying.
Your question is like asking if 2 is Purple.
Mere empty rhetoric utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning.
Nope, since "Decidability" isn't a property of a given input, trying to
ask if a given input is Decidable is a simple category error.
Your inability to understand that just highlights how ignorant you are
of the whole field.
On 7/3/2023 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 9:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 4:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 1:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/23 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
Only when I show you are wrong. Actually try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer my objections
What about a three valued decider?
0=undecidable
1=halting
2=not halting
Doesn't meet the definition of a Halt Decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because these are semantic properties based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
the input it does refute Rice.
Nope. Rice's theorem doesn't allow for an
'undecidable' output state either.
Either the input is or is not something that is in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set defined by the function/language defined. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Undecidable is just admitting that Rice is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Undecidable <is> a semantic property.
Source of that Claim?
And you aren't saying the Undecidable <IS> a semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property, but is an answer for if an input <HAS> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific semantic property.
In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial
semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic property is
one about the program's behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
Undecidable <is> a semantic property of the finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pair: {H,D}.
As I mentioned, many simple descriptions get it wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, later in the same page it says:
It is important to note that Rice's theorem does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> concern the properties of machines or programs; it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns properties of functions and languages.
H correctly accepts every language specified by the pair: >>>>>>>>>>>>> {H, *}
(where the first element is the machine description of H >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
second element is any other machine description) or rejects >>>>>>>>>>>>> this
pair as undecidable.
So, you are admitting you don't understand what you are saying. >>>>>>>>>>>>
D isn't "undecidable" but always has definite behavior based >>>>>>>>>>>> on the behavior of the definite machine H that it was based >>>>>>>>>>>> on (and thus you are being INTENTIONALLY dupicious by now >>>>>>>>>>>> calling H to be a some sort of other decider).
Since you claim that Halt-Decider-H "Correctly" returned >>>>>>>>>>>> false for H(D,D) we know that D(D) Halts, so D the problem >>>>>>>>>>>> of D has an answer so hard to call "undecidable"
Again, what is the definition of your "Language", and why do >>>>>>>>>>>> you call {H,D} as UNDECIDABLE, since H will be a FIXED >>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINED decider that is just WRONG about its input, that >>>>>>>>>>>> isn't "undecidable".
{H,D} undecidable means that D is undecidable for H, which is an >>>>>>>>>>> verified fact. The set of {H,*} finite string pairs do define a >>>>>>>>>>> language. Decidability <is> a semantic property because it >>>>>>>>>>> can only be correctly decided on the basis of behavior.
What do you mean by "Undecidable by H?"
H correctly determines that it cannot provide a halt status
consistent with the behavior of the directly executed D(D).
So? If it REALLY could detect that, it just needs to give the
opposite answer.
Or, in other words, you are just admitting that H is wrong.
Try and show how D could do that.
D can loop if H says it will halt.
D can halt when H says it will loop.
How does D make itself decidable by H to contradict
H determining that it is undecidable?
It doesn't need to, and the fact you are asking the question jkust >>>>>> shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
You clearly don't understnad what "Decidability" means.
*Computable set*
In computability theory, a set of natural numbers is called
computable,
recursive, or decidable if there is an algorithm which takes a
number as
input, terminates after a finite amount of time (possibly depending on >>>>> the given number) and correctly decides whether the number belongs to >>>>> the set or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_set
Because A finite string can be construed as a very large integer the >>>>> above must equally apply to finite strings. That you are trying to
get away with disavowing this doesn't seem quite right. Since you only >>>>> have an EE degree we could chalk this up to ignorance.
It does seem that you acknowledge that there is no way to make
decidability undecidable.
Except that "Decidability" isn't a property of an "input"/Machine,
but of a PROBLEM, or one of the sets you are talking about. (not
MEMBERS of the set, which are the machines, but the set as a whole)>
So, you are confusing a property of the SET with a property of the
members.
Decidability is about the ability for there to exist a machine that
can decide if its input is a member of the set. If there exist such
a machine, then the SET is computable/decidable. If not, the SET
isn't computable/decidable.
Since I just quoted that to you it is reasonable that you accept it.
Nope, Decidability is a property of PROBLEMS or SETS, not INPUTS.
You can't seem to tell the diffence bcause of your ignorance.
Nothing he talks about the possible members themselves being in the
set or not being a property like "decidable", it just isn't a
property of the members.
Using Rogers' characterization of acceptable programming systems, Rice's >>> theorem may essentially be generalized from Turing machines to most
computer programming languages: there exists no automatic method that
decides with generality non-trivial questions on the behavior of
computer programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
Yes, it doesn't need to be about Turning Machines, but it is still
about the ability to create a "program" to compute a Function /
Decider for a Language/Set.
H correctly determines whether or not it can correctly determine the
halting status for all of the members of the set of conventional halting >>> problem proof counter-examples and an infinite set of other elements.
But that isn't a proper property.
You don't have "Decidability" on individual inputs, so it isn't a
Property of the input that can be decided on.
H divides inputs into halting decidable and halting undecidable.
H is deciding the semantic property of its own behavior on a set of
finite strings. The above says this can be done in C.
Nope, just shows you don't understand a thing about what you are saying.
Any idiot can say that. Provide both reasoning and sources.
Your question is like asking if 2 is Purple.
Mere empty rhetoric utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning.
Nope, since "Decidability" isn't a property of a given input, trying
to ask if a given input is Decidable is a simple category error.
Decidability is about the ability for there to exist a machine
that can decide if its input is a member of the set.
H decides an infinite set of elements that are halting decidable for H
and another set that are halting undecidable for H.
Your inability to understand that just highlights how ignorant you are
of the whole field.
I suspect that you might not have more than bluster and a penchant for rebuttal.
On 7/4/23 12:35 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 9:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:So? If it REALLY could detect that, it just needs to give the >>>>>>>>> opposite answer.
On 7/3/23 4:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 1:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/23 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/23 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Only when I show you are wrong. Actually try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer my objections
What about a three valued decider? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0=undecidable
1=halting
2=not halting
Doesn't meet the definition of a Halt Decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because these are semantic properties based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
the input it does refute Rice.
Nope. Rice's theorem doesn't allow for an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'undecidable' output state either.
Either the input is or is not something that is in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the set defined by the function/language defined. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Undecidable is just admitting that Rice is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Undecidable <is> a semantic property.
Source of that Claim?
And you aren't saying the Undecidable <IS> a semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property, but is an answer for if an input <HAS> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific semantic property.
In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial
semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic property is
one about the program's behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Undecidable <is> a semantic property of the finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string pair: {H,D}.
As I mentioned, many simple descriptions get it wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, later in the same page it says:
It is important to note that Rice's theorem does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concern the properties of machines or programs; it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns properties of functions and languages.
H correctly accepts every language specified by the pair: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> {H, *}
(where the first element is the machine description of H >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
second element is any other machine description) or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejects this
pair as undecidable.
So, you are admitting you don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>> saying.
D isn't "undecidable" but always has definite behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the behavior of the definite machine H that it was >>>>>>>>>>>>> based on (and thus you are being INTENTIONALLY dupicious by >>>>>>>>>>>>> now calling H to be a some sort of other decider).
Since you claim that Halt-Decider-H "Correctly" returned >>>>>>>>>>>>> false for H(D,D) we know that D(D) Halts, so D the problem >>>>>>>>>>>>> of D has an answer so hard to call "undecidable"
Again, what is the definition of your "Language", and why >>>>>>>>>>>>> do you call {H,D} as UNDECIDABLE, since H will be a FIXED >>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINED decider that is just WRONG about its input, that >>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't "undecidable".
{H,D} undecidable means that D is undecidable for H, which >>>>>>>>>>>> is an
verified fact. The set of {H,*} finite string pairs do define a >>>>>>>>>>>> language. Decidability <is> a semantic property because it >>>>>>>>>>>> can only be correctly decided on the basis of behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>
What do you mean by "Undecidable by H?"
H correctly determines that it cannot provide a halt status >>>>>>>>>> consistent with the behavior of the directly executed D(D). >>>>>>>>>
Or, in other words, you are just admitting that H is wrong.
Try and show how D could do that.
D can loop if H says it will halt.
D can halt when H says it will loop.
How does D make itself decidable by H to contradict
H determining that it is undecidable?
It doesn't need to, and the fact you are asking the question
jkust shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
You clearly don't understnad what "Decidability" means.
*Computable set*
In computability theory, a set of natural numbers is called
computable,
recursive, or decidable if there is an algorithm which takes a
number as
input, terminates after a finite amount of time (possibly
depending on
the given number) and correctly decides whether the number belongs to >>>>>> the set or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_set
Because A finite string can be construed as a very large integer the >>>>>> above must equally apply to finite strings. That you are trying to >>>>>> get away with disavowing this doesn't seem quite right. Since you
only
have an EE degree we could chalk this up to ignorance.
It does seem that you acknowledge that there is no way to make
decidability undecidable.
Except that "Decidability" isn't a property of an "input"/Machine,
but of a PROBLEM, or one of the sets you are talking about. (not
MEMBERS of the set, which are the machines, but the set as a whole)> >>>>>
So, you are confusing a property of the SET with a property of the
members.
Decidability is about the ability for there to exist a machine that
can decide if its input is a member of the set. If there exist such
a machine, then the SET is computable/decidable. If not, the SET
isn't computable/decidable.
Since I just quoted that to you it is reasonable that you accept it.
Nope, Decidability is a property of PROBLEMS or SETS, not INPUTS.
You can't seem to tell the diffence bcause of your ignorance.
Nothing he talks about the possible members themselves being in the
set or not being a property like "decidable", it just isn't a
property of the members.
Using Rogers' characterization of acceptable programming systems,
Rice's
theorem may essentially be generalized from Turing machines to most
computer programming languages: there exists no automatic method that
decides with generality non-trivial questions on the behavior of
computer programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
Yes, it doesn't need to be about Turning Machines, but it is still
about the ability to create a "program" to compute a Function /
Decider for a Language/Set.
H correctly determines whether or not it can correctly determine the
halting status for all of the members of the set of conventional
halting
problem proof counter-examples and an infinite set of other elements.
But that isn't a proper property.
You don't have "Decidability" on individual inputs, so it isn't a
Property of the input that can be decided on.
H divides inputs into halting decidable and halting undecidable.
Which means?
After all, *ALL* inputs have a definite halting state, so there is a
correct answer to them, so there always exists a decider that will get
the right answer.
It seems by your attempt at a definition, a "Decider" that just decides
all machines are non-ha;ting would have all halting machines defined as undecidable.
H is deciding the semantic property of its own behavior on a set of
finite strings. The above says this can be done in C.
Nope, just shows you don't understand a thing about what you are saying.
Any idiot can say that. Provide both reasoning and sources.
Your question is like asking if 2 is Purple.
Mere empty rhetoric utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning.
Nope, since "Decidability" isn't a property of a given input, trying
to ask if a given input is Decidable is a simple category error.
Decidability is about the ability for there to exist a machine
that can decide if its input is a member of the set.
H decides an infinite set of elements that are halting decidable for H
and another set that are halting undecidable for H.
Again, "Halting Decidable" is an improper term,
as ALL machines are
"Decidable" to halt by some machine. So there does exist a machine that
will give the right answer. It is sometimes a different machine for
different inputs.
Read that definition again, and perhaps find a better source, as
decidability is the ability for there to exist a machine that can
decider FOR ANY INPUT, if that input is a member of the set.
There ALWAYS exist a machine that will correctly indicate if a SPECIFIC
input is a member of the set. Trivially, it can be one of two possible machines, Machine 1 always answers YES, Machine 2 always answers no. One
of those machines is right. The key point is that you need to determine
the answer for ALL inputs, thus it isn't a property of one of the
inputs, but of the SET.
As it is a property of the SET and not an input, there can't be
'decider' to determine if an 'input' has that property, since inputs
don't have that property, the set they are being tested for does.
Your inability to understand that just highlights how ignorant you
are of the whole field.
I suspect that you might not have more than bluster and a penchant for
rebuttal.
Really, I guess that is just you projecting, because you describe
yourself to the tee.
On 7/4/2023 8:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/23 12:35 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 11:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 9:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:Try and show how D could do that.
On 7/3/2023 4:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:So? If it REALLY could detect that, it just needs to give the >>>>>>>>>> opposite answer.
On 7/3/23 4:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 1:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/3/23 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/23 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/3/2023 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/23 10:42 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2023 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/23 11:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Only when I show you are wrong. Actually try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer my objections
What about a three valued decider? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0=undecidable
1=halting
2=not halting
Doesn't meet the definition of a Halt Decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because these are semantic properties based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of
the input it does refute Rice.
Nope. Rice's theorem doesn't allow for an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'undecidable' output state either.
Either the input is or is not something that is in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the set defined by the function/language defined. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Undecidable is just admitting that Rice is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Undecidable <is> a semantic property.
Source of that Claim?
And you aren't saying the Undecidable <IS> a semantic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property, but is an answer for if an input <HAS> some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific semantic property.
In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial
semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic property is
one about the program's behavior
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Undecidable <is> a semantic property of the finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string pair: {H,D}.
As I mentioned, many simple descriptions get it wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, later in the same page it says:
It is important to note that Rice's theorem does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concern the properties of machines or programs; it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns properties of functions and languages. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
H correctly accepts every language specified by the pair: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {H, *}
(where the first element is the machine description of H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the
second element is any other machine description) or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejects this
pair as undecidable.
So, you are admitting you don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying.
D isn't "undecidable" but always has definite behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the behavior of the definite machine H that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was based on (and thus you are being INTENTIONALLY >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dupicious by now calling H to be a some sort of other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider).
Since you claim that Halt-Decider-H "Correctly" returned >>>>>>>>>>>>>> false for H(D,D) we know that D(D) Halts, so D the problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of D has an answer so hard to call "undecidable"
Again, what is the definition of your "Language", and why >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you call {H,D} as UNDECIDABLE, since H will be a FIXED >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINED decider that is just WRONG about its input, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't "undecidable".
{H,D} undecidable means that D is undecidable for H, which >>>>>>>>>>>>> is an
verified fact. The set of {H,*} finite string pairs do >>>>>>>>>>>>> define a
language. Decidability <is> a semantic property because it >>>>>>>>>>>>> can only be correctly decided on the basis of behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
What do you mean by "Undecidable by H?"
H correctly determines that it cannot provide a halt status >>>>>>>>>>> consistent with the behavior of the directly executed D(D). >>>>>>>>>>
Or, in other words, you are just admitting that H is wrong. >>>>>>>>>
D can loop if H says it will halt.
D can halt when H says it will loop.
How does D make itself decidable by H to contradict
H determining that it is undecidable?
It doesn't need to, and the fact you are asking the question
jkust shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
You clearly don't understnad what "Decidability" means.
*Computable set*
In computability theory, a set of natural numbers is called
computable,
recursive, or decidable if there is an algorithm which takes a
number as
input, terminates after a finite amount of time (possibly
depending on
the given number) and correctly decides whether the number
belongs to
the set or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_set
Because A finite string can be construed as a very large integer the >>>>>>> above must equally apply to finite strings. That you are trying to >>>>>>> get away with disavowing this doesn't seem quite right. Since you >>>>>>> only
have an EE degree we could chalk this up to ignorance.
It does seem that you acknowledge that there is no way to make
decidability undecidable.
Except that "Decidability" isn't a property of an "input"/Machine, >>>>>> but of a PROBLEM, or one of the sets you are talking about. (not
MEMBERS of the set, which are the machines, but the set as a whole)> >>>>>>
So, you are confusing a property of the SET with a property of the >>>>>> members.
Decidability is about the ability for there to exist a machine
that can decide if its input is a member of the set. If there
exist such a machine, then the SET is computable/decidable. If
not, the SET isn't computable/decidable.
Since I just quoted that to you it is reasonable that you accept it.
Nope, Decidability is a property of PROBLEMS or SETS, not INPUTS.
You can't seem to tell the diffence bcause of your ignorance.
Nothing he talks about the possible members themselves being in
the set or not being a property like "decidable", it just isn't a
property of the members.
Using Rogers' characterization of acceptable programming systems,
Rice's
theorem may essentially be generalized from Turing machines to most
computer programming languages: there exists no automatic method that >>>>> decides with generality non-trivial questions on the behavior of
computer programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
Yes, it doesn't need to be about Turning Machines, but it is still
about the ability to create a "program" to compute a Function /
Decider for a Language/Set.
But that isn't a proper property.
H correctly determines whether or not it can correctly determine the >>>>> halting status for all of the members of the set of conventional
halting
problem proof counter-examples and an infinite set of other elements. >>>>
You don't have "Decidability" on individual inputs, so it isn't a
Property of the input that can be decided on.
H divides inputs into halting decidable and halting undecidable.
Which means?
After all, *ALL* inputs have a definite halting state, so there is a
correct answer to them, so there always exists a decider that will get
the right answer.
It seems by your attempt at a definition, a "Decider" that just
decides all machines are non-ha;ting would have all halting machines
defined as undecidable.
I never said anything like that.
(Here is what I already said)
H returns three values:
0=halting is undecidable by H
1=halting
2=not halting
The human user runs H(D,D) and H returns 0. This tells the human
user to run H1(D,D) to get the correct halt status decision for H.
Because D could not have reconfigured itself this must work correctly.
H is deciding the semantic property of its own behavior on a set of
finite strings. The above says this can be done in C.
Nope, just shows you don't understand a thing about what you are
saying.
Any idiot can say that. Provide both reasoning and sources.
Your question is like asking if 2 is Purple.
Mere empty rhetoric utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning.
Nope, since "Decidability" isn't a property of a given input, trying
to ask if a given input is Decidable is a simple category error.
Decidability is about the ability for there to exist a machine
that can decide if its input is a member of the set.
H decides an infinite set of elements that are halting decidable for H
and another set that are halting undecidable for H.
Again, "Halting Decidable" is an improper term,
It is a brand new concept that was never relevant before because
everyone incorrectly assumed that deciding halting decidability
was blocked by Rice.
H correctly divides its inputs into those having the pathological relationship to H of the conventional halting problem proofs and
inputs that do not have this relationship.
as ALL machines are "Decidable" to halt by some machine. So there does
exist a machine that will give the right answer. It is sometimes a
different machine for different inputs.
Read that definition again, and perhaps find a better source, as
decidability is the ability for there to exist a machine that can
decider FOR ANY INPUT, if that input is a member of the set.
My current code can already do that for every member of the set.
There ALWAYS exist a machine that will correctly indicate if a
SPECIFIC input is a member of the set. Trivially, it can be one of two
possible machines, Machine 1 always answers YES, Machine 2 always
answers no. One of those machines is right. The key point is that you
need to determine the answer for ALL inputs, thus it isn't a property
of one of the inputs, but of the SET.
My code also rejects inputs that are not members of this set.
As it is a property of the SET and not an input, there can't be
'decider' to determine if an 'input' has that property, since inputs
don't have that property, the set they are being tested for does.
I had very recent very long discussions with a PhD computer scientist
and he seemed to believe that the halting problem is about dividing
finite string pairs into those that halt on their input and those that
do not.
My case is analogous. H divides finite strings into those that have a pathological relationship to H and those that do not on the basis of the behavior that this finite string specifies.
Your inability to understand that just highlights how ignorant you
are of the whole field.
I suspect that you might not have more than bluster and a penchant for
rebuttal.
Really, I guess that is just you projecting, because you describe
yourself to the tee.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 384 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 60:14:56 |
| Calls: | 8,173 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,113 |
| Messages: | 5,864,381 |